I have become a teacher over the last few years. Recently we've started getting these Prevent guys coming in and telling us how to spot extremism - of any sort but we know what they're on about right? Those meetings always get pretty heated.

I have become a teacher over the last few years. Recently we've started getting these Prevent guys coming in and telling us how to spot extremism - of any sort but we know what they're on about right? Those meetings always get pretty heated.

These things should be understood dialectically. The wishy-washy left-liberal tendency that gave us a disparate population without common institutions, and the wishy-washy right-liberals who are ineptly responding to it with farcical admonitions about "British values", are two parts of the same process.

Part of OFSTED - promotion of British Values - many schools genuinely spending thousands on gurus coming telling them how to demonstrate this to the inspectors. I spent over an hour in a meeting where they seriously debated this - I was asked to stop with my facetious comments.

Sounds like you deserve a medal for resisting the urge to commit murder and/or suicide, never mind facetious comments.

I like the idea of a jackbooted anti-extremism officer, with mad, staring eyes, a very small, neat moustache and a permanent muscle tic under one eye, marching into classrooms and dragging away for compulsory re-education any student (or teacher, for that matter) who looks like they might be at risk of extremism.

Tea - I doubt anything so concrete would be put in place. Clear objectives and job responsibilities are not in vogue.

It would more likely be a case of some well meaning and over worked teacher mentioning a student's comments in passing to another teacher in a social context (like over lunch or having a coffee between meetings after school). Then the dominos of gossip would fall at the feet some over ambitious and passive aggressive deputy head or 'manager' who would then pseudo-socially and covertly harangue the teacher into pursuing the reporting of the child. Power aint badges and boots, it is soft skills and emotive pressure.

These things should be understood dialectically. The wishy-washy left-liberal tendency that gave us a disparate population without common institutions, and the wishy-washy right-liberals who are ineptly responding to it with farcical admonitions about "British values", are two parts of the same process.

And what's funny is that "tolerance" invariably features high up on the list of these much-vaunted British Values:

Originally Posted by David Cameron

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone...This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.

We will not tolerate people who will not tolerate our attempts to force them to be tolerant!

Tea - I doubt anything so concrete would be put in place. Clear objectives and job responsibilities are not in vogue.

It would more likely be a case of some well meaning and over worked teacher mentioning a student's comments in passing to another teacher in a social context (like over lunch or having a coffee between meetings after school). Then the dominos of gossip would fall at the feet some over ambitious and passive aggressive deputy head or 'manager' who would then pseudo-socially and covertly harangue the teacher into pursuing the reporting of the child. Power aint badges and boots, it is soft skills and emotive pressure.

I predict extremist quotas within 5 years. If you dont send at least 14 teenagers into internment every year you get your budget cut.

I predict extremist quotas within 5 years. If you dont send at least 14 teenagers into internment every year you get your budget cut.

You only see quotas and targets imposed with myopic ruthlessness in the public sector. The education system is deteriorating into constellations of privately funded academies.
I can imagine the opposite of what you say occurring.
A set of private interests will be lead by PR and reputation anxiety to hide major social or religious differences being challenges.

Also - isn't the Prevent Strategy all a bit minority report/thought-crime etc? Extremism itself isn't an offence. Crime such as terrorism is. There is nothing wrong with a belief so long as the kids don't go trudging through the snow burning churches to spread their belief.. y'know... So if Prevent is targetting beliefs then for me it's wrong. If it is targetting crime pre-emptively (based on opinion or subjective observation) then that too is wrong.

You only see quotas and targets imposed with myopic ruthlessness in the public sector. The education system is deteriorating into constellations of privately funded academies.
I can imagine the opposite of what you say occurring.
A set of private interests will be lead by PR and reputation anxiety to hide major social or religious differences being challenges.

Also - isn't the Prevent Strategy all a bit minority report/thought-crime etc? Extremism itself isn't an offence. Crime such as terrorism is. There is nothing wrong with a belief so long as the kids don't go trudging through the snow burning churches to spread their belief.. y'know... So if Prevent is targetting beliefs then for me it's wrong. If it is targetting crime pre-emptively (based on opinion or subjective observation) then that too is wrong.

I guess the standard argument goes that propagating material that could make other people more likely to commit violence by encouragement, or facilitate their doing so, should in itself be a crime. Which is why it's illegal to sell guns in this country except under certain very strictly controlled circumstances, for instance.

Of course, what constitutes "material that could encourage someone to commit violence" is an incredibly vague and subjective notion, and could just as easily include all sorts of things that no-one would normally consider 'criminal', such as a news story.

I guess the standard argument goes that propagating material that could make other people more likely to commit violence by encouragement, or facilitate their doing so, should in itself be a crime. Which is why it's illegal to sell guns in this country except under certain very strictly controlled circumstances, for instance.

Of course, what constitutes "material that could encourage someone to commit violence" is an incredibly vague and subjective notion, and could just as easily include all sorts of things that no-one would normally consider 'criminal', such as a news story.

Or even someone's face.

**starts online petition to remove Leviticus chapter from all UK state schools**